Inglewood Told To Pay $118k Of Taxpayer Money For Abusing Copyright Law To Silence A Critic
from the democracy! dept
Remember the City of Inglewood, California? The city where mayor James Butts was so annoyed that an online critic, Joseph Teixeira, had made some mocking videos using clips from city council meetings, that he allotted $50,000 of taxpayer money to fund a lawyer to file an absolutely bogus copyright lawsuit against Teixeira? This lawsuit alleged that Teixeira somehow infringed on the copyright of the City by adding commentary to these videos. There was so much wrong with the lawsuit that it was a total embarrassment for the city and the lawyer, Joanna Esty, who claims to be a "seasoned" lawyer with expertise in intellectual property law.The court did not take long in dismissing the lawsuit and benchslapping the city for filing the lawsuit in the first place. The court allowed Teixeira to seek legal fees, and while the city pushed back, the court has now told the city to pay another $117,741 in legal fees to Teixeira's lawyers, noting that the entire lawsuit was "objectively unreasonable."
Judge Michael Fitzgerald has another opportunity to smack Inglewood around for filing such a bogus lawsuit in the first place, and notes that it's pretty damn clear that the entire purpose behind this lawsuit was to silence a critic, not because of any legitimate belief that a copyright was being infringed.
It is, of course, impossible to know with certainty what prompted the City to bring this lawsuit. The City avers that its only motivation was to enforce the rights it believed it had in the videos.... But the Court is not persuaded. As Defendant rightly notes, the main justification of the Copyright Act is “the protection of the commercial interest of the author.”... California law, however, prohibits the City from charging anything more than the “direct costs of duplication” when providing public records.... Pecuniary gain, therefore, could not have been the motivating factor in filing this action. As the Court made clear at the hearing, the City’s most plausible purpose was to stifle Defendant’s political speech after he harshly criticized the City’s elected officials. As such, this factor weighs heavily in favor of an attorneys’ fees award.The judge also notes that he's worried that, if left unpunished, Inglewood or other cities might do this again:
At the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff implied that this Court was basing its ruling on the reaction of the press or the academic community. The Court does not do so.
The Court is also persuaded that a fee award is necessary to deter future meritless litigations of this kind. The City argues that the attorneys’ fees “will have absolutely no deterrent effect” on a municipality that intends to file no future copyright lawsuits.... Even if true, the Court notes that deterrence is a broad value that is not limited to the individual litigants here. Indeed, a reasonable award of fees will serve to deter other entities, whether public or private, that contemplate bringing unreasonable suits to pressure an individual into abandoning protected activity.So, between the original $50,000 allotted and this $117,741, that's an awful lot of taxpayer money being spent just to try to stifle someone's First Amendment rights. It kind of makes you wonder what they're doing with the rest of the taxpayer funds they have access to.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, copyright as censorship, free speech, inglewood, james butts, joanna esty, joseph teixeira
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lessons Learned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessons Learned
besides, i'm sure The They (tm) have learned their 'lesson', and will just find some other 'legal' means of exacting their revenge...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another day of typical government malfeasance in action
Based on their level of self-importance and incompetence, I'll bet it is mostly on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4 comments and no jokes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
Come on, the name is James Butts people!
Ahem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 4 comments and no jokes?
(he tells jokes all the time)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cadillac v Chevy
I would agree that the City should not be forced to pay for a chartered helicopter when an automobile would have sufficed. But neither should defendants run the risk of getting stuck with a Trabant. When hauled into an American court, defendants may reasonably expect an American-made car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cadillac v Chevy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cadillac v Chevy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here is a google street view link to it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9153596,-118.352397,3a,46.4y,348.72h,105.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4! 1sGJ1Qu38p7RAA89pX1hTcTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hawthorne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hawthorne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hawthorne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karot işleri – Karot uygulamaları bir çok alanda kullanılmakta ve çözümler sunmaktadır.
Karot işi, matkap şeklindeki karotcu makinaları olarak adlandırılan makinalarla yapılmaktadır. İşlevi nedeniyle bir çok alanda ihtiyaca cevap veren uygulamadır. Bu makineler ile beton yapıdan silindir şeklinde parça çıkarılmaktır. Buna karot alma denilmektedir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Core work - Core applications are used in many areas and offers solutions.
Carotene work is done with machines called karotc machines shaped drill. The function is responsive to the needs of applications in many fields due. These machines will be removed with the cylindrical part of the concrete structure. This is called coring."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]